INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers Review commenced at: 8:45 AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date) File #: 95-251947

Laboratory #(s): 21008055

21008053 Examiner(s) & Symbols Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed

RQ Xo Oo , Oo Oo VN Oo Xo Oo Oo

oO Oo oO Oo

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of: not provided

Testimony Date(s): _ Pages:

Laboratory Report(s): Laboratory Number: 21008055 Date: Nov 10, 1982 Laboratory Number: 21008053 Date: Dec 9, 1982

Laboratory Number: Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technicians

Laboratory Number: 21008055. 21008053

Page 1 of 3

Initials: Sau

CRM - 11273

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes O No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | submitting agency letters, both dated 10-7-82

Results of Review File #: 95-251947 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q14, K1- K3, Q18-Q22, K3, K4, K7, K8, K9, K10, K15, K16, K18, K19, K22, K23

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on .

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the

methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? . OYes XONo_ J Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

X0 Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O Yes OGNo- JO Unable to Determine 4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? O Yes QNo- JO Unable to Determine 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? O Yes OGNo- 4d Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 2]

Initials: md /

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-251947

#1: With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted

in an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. Abbreviations

are used that are difficult to interpret. Some of the hair recovered from the Q items are marked as "NSFC". Presumably, this means "Not Suitable for Comparison", but there is no documentation as to why these hair are unsuitable. The technicians do not document the recovery of hair from any of the Q items as stated in the report. From the documentation, it cannot be determined if the examiner looked at items Q18-Q21, yet he reports that

no Caucasian hair was found in these items.

Review completed at: 9:30AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date) Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.75 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

11/08/2001

(Signature) | (Date)

_ Page 3 of 3

Initials: oY. (_-